Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1984–1988 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Murray v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982). ‘(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.’ Id. at 71 .” Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984); Harris, supra at 355 . 1988Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982). ‘(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.’ Id. at 71 .” Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984); Harris, supra at 355 . | 4 | 5 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences1988“In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that ‘an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.’ In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that ‘because jurors are not bound by the opin 1988“In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that ‘an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.’ In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that ‘because jurors are not bound by the opin | 2 | 8 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences1987OCGA § 16-2-3; Butler v. State, 252 Ga. 135 ( 311 SE2d 473 ) (1984); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 ( 238 SE2d 334 ) (1977) .... “(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.” (Cit.)’ Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91-92 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984).” Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 , supra, p. 441. 1987OCGA § 16-2-3; Butler v. State, 252 Ga. 135 ( 311 SE2d 473 ) (1984); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 ( 238 SE2d 334 ) (1977) .... “(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.” (Cit.)’ Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91-92 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984).” Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 , supra, p. 441. | 2 | 3 |
McMachren v. Stategreen2 sentences1988“In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that ‘an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.’ In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that ‘because jurors are not bound by the opin 1988“In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that ‘an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.’ In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that ‘because jurors are not bound by the opin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. State
green
2 sentences1988Citing Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 ( 350 SE2d 21 ) (1986), the appellant contends that application of the Brown standard mandates the reversal of his convictions in the present case. 1987OCGA § 16-2-3; Butler v. State, 252 Ga. 135 ( 311 SE2d 473 ) (1984); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 ( 238 SE2d 334 ) (1977) .... “(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.” (Cit.)’ Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91-92 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984).” Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 , supra, p. 441. | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Durham v. State
green
2 sentences1987OCGA § 16-2-3; Butler v. State, 252 Ga. 135 ( 311 SE2d 473 ) (1984); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 ( 238 SE2d 334 ) (1977) .... “(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.” (Cit.)’ Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91-92 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984).” Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 , supra, p. 441. 1987OCGA § 16-2-3; Butler v. State, 252 Ga. 135 ( 311 SE2d 473 ) (1984); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 ( 238 SE2d 334 ) (1977) .... “(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.” (Cit.)’ Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91-92 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984).” Stevens v. State, 256 Ga. 440 , supra, p. 441. | 2 | 1986–1987 |
Brooks v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that “an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.” In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that “because jurors are not bound by the opini 1988In Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71-72 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982), the Supreme Court held that “an appropriate standard of appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to a jury’s finding of sanity in a criminal case is whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the crime.” In announcing this standard of review, the Court reaffirmed its previous holdings that “because jurors are not bound by the opini | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence1988Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66 ( 295 SE2d 727 ) (1982). ‘(B)ecause jurors are not bound by the opinions on sanity of either lay or expert witnesses, the jury may reject defense testimony on insanity even if uncontradicted; the presumption of sanity does not disappear upon the introduction of evidence to the contrary and may be relied upon by the jury even after the introduction of evidence of insanity.’ Id. at 71 .” Murray v. State, 253 Ga. 90, 91 ( 317 SE2d 193 ) (1984); Harris, supra at 355 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.